Super PAC money a force in governor's race

As the Sept. 9 primary nears, super PACS are increasingly flexing their financial muscles.Unrestrained by donation limits, super PACs have accounted for more than 40 percent of all spending in the race for governor over the past two months. Since July 1, super PACs have spent more than $1.66 million related to the gov...

Unrestrained by donation limits, super PACs have accounted for more than 40 percent of all spending in the race for governor over the past two months. Since July 1, super PACs have spent more than $1.66 million related to the governor’s race, compared to a total of $2.48 million spent by the candidates during that same span, according to filings with the Office of Campaign and Political finance.

“Large money contributions are a problem,” said Nancy Brumback, a vice president with the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts. “It tends to dampen the voice of the individual voter.”

Super PACS, more formally known as independent expenditure political action committees, emerged in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. The committees may raise and spend money to support or oppose candidates but are not allowed to coordinate with the individual campaigns. They are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money and are not subject to caps on individual donations.

The Citizens United decision, many analysts say, has fundamentally changed the dynamics of political campaigns.

“It’s made it absolutely mandatory that candidates need them (super PACs) in order to survive politically … ” said Thomas Whalen, associate professor of social science at Boston University. “The message to candidates is if you take the moral high ground, you’re going to lose.”

The pro-Baker Commonwealth Future PAC recently made a $1.25 million TV media buy, according to campaign finance filings. The group has reported raising $1.37 million, all but $20,000 of which came in the form of donations from the Republican Governors Association.

Baker is competing against tea party candidate Mark Fisher for the Republican nomination.

Mass Forward, a pro-Grossman super PAC, has spent nearly $475,000 since June. Most of the spending has been on TV ad production and airtime. The candidate’s mother, Shirley Grossman, is one of the largest donors to the super PAC, contributing $100,000 to the committee.

Grossman is vying for the Democratic nomination against Martha Coakley and Don Berwick.

United Independent Party candidate Evan Falchuk has spent $865,000, while independents Scott Lively and Jeff McCormick have spent $9,400 and $901,000, respectively.

A pair of anti-Baker super PACs have also entered the mix, spending on advertising and media production. The National Association of Government Employees super PAC has expended $125,000 opposing Baker, while the Mass Independent Expenditure PAC has spent more than $48,000.

“People just respond to the ads,” Whalen said. “They may not like idea of PAC money, but they are swayed by how candidates are defined in these ads.”

Page 2 of 2 - A new state law that went into effect in July requires super PACs to disclose their donors.

“It’s a good first step,” said Brumback, whose organization supported the disclosure legislation.

The disclosure requirements, in Whalen’s opinion, won’t make much of a difference,. He shared his concerns about the growing influence of super PACS across the country.

“Basically, it allows candidates to be readily bought,” he said.

Without donation limits, super PACs can raise huge sums of cash very quickly, making them powerful influences in campaign cycles.